Selon gwtmp01 / mac.com:
>
> And can understand this mental model of the syntax. It is what I've
> come to
> understand also. My point was that it is a *different* mental model
> than
> what I use for:
>
> class A < B; end.
>
> The A and B here have different relationship than the object/singleton
> class relationship.
>
True. That's why you don't use "<" but "<<". Different relationship, different
syntax. And I don't think the similarity of the two symbols is so close that
it's problematic. I mean, one can write:
"string" < "other string" and
"string" << "other string"
and so far I've never seen someone complain that those two symbols are too
similar for the completely different meanings they have. If one can accept that
with strings '<' means comparison while '<<' means concatenation, why cannot
they accept that after the keyword 'class' '<' means subclassing while '<<'
means getting the singleton class?
--
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.